Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 27 studies in Treatments · tagged Care Services (page 1 of 2) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Treatments” covers

Treatments — Drug and non-drug treatment research — what was tested, in whom, and what changed — plus the approvals and coverage decisions that followed.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

A program of counseling and support can substantially increase the time spouse-caregivers are able to care for AD patients at home, particularly during the early to middle stages of dementia when nursing home placement is generally least appropriate. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Improving caregiver well-being delays nursing home placement of patients with Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Neurology 2006-11-01

Greater access to effective programs of counseling and support could yield considerable benefits for caregivers, patients with Alzheimer disease, and society. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Goals-of-care documentation during the intervention phase occurred among 3744 of 6023 patients (62.2%) compared with 2396 of 4779 patients (50.1%) in the usual care phase (P Conclusions and relevance In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial of older adults, a GOC video intervention delivered by PCEs resulted in higher rates of GOC documentation compared with usual care, including among Black or African American individuals, Hispanic or Latino individuals, non-English speakers, and people living with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. 3 key findings →

Participants: 802 Evidence: high

In our final study sample (N = 21,558), significant difference in survival among index AD medication groups were observed with donepezil being associated with better survival than memantine, and oral and transdermal forms of rivastigmine for both ITT and as-treated analysis. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 21,558 Evidence: moderate

Use of donepezil by AD patients resulted in significant delays in NHP. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 1,115 Evidence: high

We were unable to detect a difference in HRQOL for screening for ADRD among older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,008 Evidence: high

The techniques evaluated were person-centered showering and the towel bath (a person-centered, in-bed bag-bath with no-rinse soap). 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Collaborative care for the treatment of Alzheimer disease resulted in significant improvement in the quality of care and in behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia among primary care patients and their caregivers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 84 Evidence: high

This cluster randomized clinical trial found that despite high adherence to the training, a multicomponent intervention promoting goal-directed care for suspected UTIs and LRIs did not significantly reduce antimicrobial use among nursing home residents with advanced dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

This multicenter trial showed no benefit of divalproex sodium for treatment for agitation in dementia at a mean dose of 800 mg/day over 6 weeks. 3 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: high

In nursing home residents with AD and psychosis, aripiprazole did not confer specific benefits for the treatment of psychotic symptoms; but psychological and behavioral symptoms, including agitation, anxiety, and depression, were improved with aripiprazole, with a low risk of AEs. 4 key findings →

Participants: 131 Evidence: high

The use of conventional anti-dementia drugs is associated with a lower mortality in nursing home residents with dementia and should be widely used in this population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 25,358 Evidence: moderate

Emotion-oriented care is more effective with regard to the emotional adaptation in nursing homes of persons with a mild to moderate dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Subjects receiving the activity specific exercise program improved in ability to perform transfers, whereas subjects in the other 2 groups declined. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Little is known about the effectiveness of a psychosocial behaviour management programme on home-dwelling people with dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Feasibility of a Memory Clinic-Based Physical Activity Prescription Program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2016-04-01

Setup and daily use of mHealth technology appears to be feasible for a person with cognitive impairment with the help of a partner, but increasing daily step counts over 8 weeks was not achieved. 1 key finding →

Participants: 21 Evidence: high

Use of potentially inappropriate medications in Australian nursing home residents with advanced dementia is common. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 65 Evidence: high

Improving quality and delivery of care for people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) requires a comprehensive research agenda that encompasses the entire care continuum. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Among nursing home residents with dementia, discontinuing long-term antipsychotic medication use was associated with lower risks of hospitalization, pneumonia, and urinary tract infections, suggesting clinical benefits in this population. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 4,222 Evidence: moderate

Overall time and the times for ADL care and supervision can be considered valid estimates. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

The introduction of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies marks a major shift in Alzheimer's disease (AD) care, moving treatment toward biological modification and reshaping diagnostic and organizational models. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Monoclonal antibodies such as lecanemab and donanemab show reduction in amyloid plaque and slowing of cognitive and functional decline (modest) in early AD (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia). 5 key findings →

Design: narrative review Evidence: high

Lecanemab, a monoclonal antibody targeting β-amyloid protofibrils, has shown promising results in a Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

In 2022, 726 patients were included. The average age was 82.2 years, with a majority of women (68.5%). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 726 Evidence: moderate

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 27,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed